Hieroglyphs

The word “hieroglyph” translates to “sacred writing.” If you’re like me, your first attempts to learn writing were probably not very sacred at all. Tongue pressed to the corner of my mouth, eyes staring fixedly at the paper flat in front of me, my hand going anywhere but where I wanted it to, writing was a burden. I soon grew to love it though, not realizing it was changing my brain even as I was assimilating how to do it. Anne Trubek introduces quite a few new angles to the story in The History and Uncertain Future of Handwriting. She begins at the beginning, cuneiform, not hieroglyphics, and offers a brief sketch of how handwriting developed into the phenomenon we know today. And how it is now becoming something very different than what it once was.

Trubek’s book is full of delightful surprises about the development of scripts and the technologies that attend them. Like most non-specialists in cuneiform suppose, she suggests handwriting is basically anonymous therein. In fact, it’s not. Molding clay into a smartphone-shaped tablet doesn’t seem like technology, but the process of writing took a leap forward when someone figured out how to do this. Those who work with cuneiform can learn to identify handwriting. In the Ugaritic corpus, the tablets “signed” by Ilimilku can be distinguished from those written by others, and not just by his name. Technology has been devised to measure depth and order of stylus strokes in the clay, the angle the stylus was held, and many other seemingly insignificant features. Handwriting was present from the very beginning.

Perhaps what is most striking about Trubek’s study is how religion enters the discussion at almost every stage. Very early on writing was identified as a sacred activity. This continued through the middle ages when monks were those who performed writing as part of their non-secular duties. Even those who piloted penmanship in the modern period often noted that a person’s moral, Christian disposition could be measured by how said person made their letters. Writing, as those who do it for a good while know, becomes a sacred activity. Most world religions have holy books. Many of those books were the reason for an interest in literacy in several cultures. Even a surprising number of secular writers have understood the activity to have spiritual dimensions. Trubek’s book gives bibliophiles plenty to ponder. She doesn’t see the rise of keyboarding as a threat to writing because even in the computer age, individuality comes through. And for those who truly understand hieroglyphs, all writing is sacred.

4 responses to “Hieroglyphs”

Today, belief in the “sacredness” of handwriting has devolved, in certain (mostly right-wing) educational and political circles, into a belief that cursive is magic: that it is somehow essential for individuality and brain-growth and all manner of other good things. This is behind the bills introduced, in many state legislatures from 2012 onward, to mandate cursive handwriting; in my personal (and disconcerting) experiences with the introducers and supporters of such bills, it is quite common for them to misquote the research on handwriting in order to make it appear to uniquely support cursive — when they are caught out in such misrepresentations, very cheerfully explain (to the media, to their fellow legislators, and/or to the people who caught them out) That the misrepresentation was necessary and a virtuous in order to support cursive handwriting, because (according to their own statement) cursive handwriting could not be effectively defend it in any other way. For further info, reach me; contact-info is on my site at HandwritingThatWorks.com .

[Re-sent, to correct a typo]
Today, belief in the “sacredness” of handwriting has devolved, in certain (mostly right-wing) educational and political circles, into a belief that cursive is magic: that it is somehow essential for individuality and brain-growth and all manner of other good things. This is behind the bills introduced, in many state legislatures from 2012 onward, to mandate cursive handwriting; in my personal (and disconcerting) experiences with the introducers and supporters of such bills, it is quite common for them to misquote the research on handwriting in order to make it appear to uniquely support cursive — when they are caught out in such misrepresentations, very cheerfully explain (to the media, to their fellow legislators, and/or to the people who caught them out) That the misrepresentation was necessary and a virtuous in order to support cursive handwriting, because (according to their own statement) cursive handwriting could not be effectively defended in any other way. For further info, reach me; contact-info is on my site at HandwritingThatWorks.com .